You are on page 1of 24

AN41CH28-Zeitlyn

ARI

ANNUAL
REVIEWS

16 August 2012

19:27

Further

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2012.41:461-480. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org


by University of Michigan - Ann Arbor on 02/22/13. For personal use only.

Click here for quick links to


Annual Reviews content online,
including:
Other articles in this volume
Top cited articles
Top downloaded articles
Our comprehensive search

Anthropology in and of the


Archives: Possible Futures and
Contingent Pasts. Archives as
Anthropological Surrogates
David Zeitlyn
Institute of Social and Cultural Anthropology, School of Anthropology and Museum
Ethnography, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6PE, United Kingdom;
email: david.zeitlyn@anthro.ox.ac.uk

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2012. 41:46180

Keywords

First published online as a Review in Advance on


July 2, 2012

archival studies, museology, digital archives, research ethics,


surrogates

The Annual Review of Anthropology is online at


anthro.annualreviews.org
This articles doi:
10.1146/annurev-anthro-092611-145721
c 2012 by Annual Reviews.
Copyright 
All rights reserved
0084-6570/12/1021-0461$20.00

This article is part of a special theme on


Materiality. For a list of other articles in this
theme, see this volumes Table of Contents.

Abstract
Derrida and Foucault provide key starting points to understanding
archives. They see archives as hegemonic, characterizing ways of
thought, modes of colonization, and the control of citizens. However,
they also make clear that archives can be read subversively. With patience, counter-readings allow the excavation of the voices (sometimes
names) of subaltern and otherwise suppressed others from the archive.
By reading along and across the archival grain, researchers can follow the development of ideas and processes across historical periods.
Archives can be seen as orphanages, containing surrogates of performances. Archives (paper and digital) also provide access to the results of
anthropological research in ways mandated by ethics codes, but these
are subject to controversy. What sorts of consent and what sorts of
anonymization should be provided? Archives run by the groups traditionally studied by anthropologists provide models of radical archives
that are very different from those conceived of by traditional archivists.

461

ARI

16 August 2012

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2012.41:461-480. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org


by University of Michigan - Ann Arbor on 02/22/13. For personal use only.

AN41CH28-Zeitlyn

19:27

ARCHIVES FOR
ANTHROPOLOGY

ARCHIVES AS INSTRUMENTS
OF HEGEMONY

Anthropologists, historians, and fellow travelers undertake much research in archives. These
are mostly administrative archives, often including material concerning former colonial
territories. They are the long-term repositories of documents produced by governments
and other institutions in their day-to-day operations. However, archives need not be ofcial
and institutional. Many individuals and families
maintain smaller-scale archives, which provide
important evidence for a wide range of topics.
Some archives holding the work of early anthropologists and others, such as missionaries,
have been used by anthropologists and indigenous groups to recover material spanning the
past 150200 years of more-or-less structured
research.1

An important strand of Foucaults work (1970,


1977) unpicks the archaeological texture and
development (genealogy3 ) by which government becomes a government of thought, and
the archive, as an expression of governmental control of its subjects, assumes a supreme
importance as a structuring structure (Bourdieu 1977) or hegemonic instrument of the state
(see Echevarra 1990, especially p. 175).4 This
line of approach was inuential in understanding colonialism in general and colonial archives
in particular (Cohn 1987, Stocking 1991, Pels
1997, Mathur 2000, Dirks 2002, Burton 2003,
Stoler 2009). As Appadurai (1993) and Asad
(2002) have stressed, the development of quantitative approaches was a device to improve governmentality to increase control in the Indian
colonies [Stoler (2009) also discusses the importance of counting in Indonesia (p. 167)]. I
discuss other aspects of subaltern readings of
colonial archives below. However, there is a
notable parallel and irony: Foucault and his followers [such as Davies (1987) and many other
historians and anthropologists] have explored
how the archive suppresses, suborns, and controls groups such as women, the insane, and religious dissidents in Europe, in the home states
of the global colonizers. Is there a signicant
difference between the experience of control of
such people and that of colonized groups? Perhaps governments colonize all their subjects,
whether in cities or the distant colonies (Foucault analyzed the development of the modern

PART ONE: THE NATURE


OF ARCHIVES
Plurals and Capitals: archive or
Archive, Archive or Archives?
Archives are both the repositories of material
(buildings, suites of rooms, or a Web address)
and the materials contained therein. Many authors have exploited the slippage between these
two senses, pitting them against each other.
Some usage differences map onto substantive
differences between authors. Broadly speaking,
professional archivists discuss an archives:
Dictionaries indicate that the word is usually plural (because even one building contains
many les). By contrast, theorists who use the
idea of records in an extended (metaphorical)
sense, following Foucault and Derrida, discuss
the singular archive, often with a denite article:
the archive, and sometimes even the Archive.2

See Savage 2007 and other papers in Sociological Research


Online 12(3) in the section, Reusing Qualitative Data.

Supplemental Material

462

See Supplemental Appendix 1 (follow the Supplemental Material link from the Annual Reviews home page at
http://www.annualreviews.org) for relative rates of usage.
Zeitlyn

3
Foucault is notoriously unclear about the difference between
archeology and genealogy (see Sheringham 2011, discussed
below).
4
For Richards, colonies could not really be governed given
the resources available and the limits of paper-based communication across distance (1993, p. 3). He sees the administrators controlling paper instead of people, resting on
the illusion of their les, hence his subtitle: Knowledge and
the Fantasy of Empire. In Seeing Like a State, Scott says,
[T]here are virtually no other facts for the state than those
that are contained in documents (Scott 1998, p. 82, quoted
in Ketelaar 2001, p. 133). Similarly, Joyce sees archives as a
crucial technology of liberal states (1999).

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2012.41:461-480. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org


by University of Michigan - Ann Arbor on 02/22/13. For personal use only.

AN41CH28-Zeitlyn

ARI

16 August 2012

19:27

state and the oppression of its subjects in general). The distinction between colonizers and
colonized strangely seems less signicant from
this viewpoint.5
Another general reading of archives is found
in Derrida (1995, but see also 2002). For
Derrida (1995), like Foucault, there is no escape from archival hegemony; it is a way of
thinking about memory, of exploring Freuds
ideas of the fear of death, and of repression as
a type of archiving, a reversible form of forgetting (p. 43; I discuss archival liminality below). He plays with the ambiguity of his title,
Archive Sickness or Fever: One can be simultaneously sick of and sick (with desire) for archives.
Steedman responded to this by considering literal forms of archive fever, such as anthrax from
parchment and leather bindings, and the anxiety and joys of archival research (2002, 2007,
2008).
Parallels with Foucault arise when considering the role of archivists, the gatekeepers selecting which items are archived and which are
condemned to oblivion by being omitted. This
process is another instrumentality of power.
Present choices determine future history, selecting the materials available to future historians (Derrida 1995, p. 17).6
Archivists have recently discussed the exercise of power in archival appraisal, the determination of what becomes the archival record7
[see especially Craig (2002), Schwartz & Cook
(2002), Manoff (2004, p. 20), Cook (2007);
Assman (2010) is discussed below]. Yakel
(2007) considers how archivists create archival

5
This will be read differently in Mumbai, Liverpool, and
Douala: Such different readings challenge the discipline of
anthropology. We need to rethink the conceptual extensions
of the archive and colonization [see Povinellis (2011, p. 158)
discussion of postcolonial archives].
6
Derrida started with the physical basis of the archive as the
house of the archon (magistrate), the place where (judicial)
records were kept; so archives connect directly to the power
of the state (and Foucaults work).
7
Examples include the destruction/selection of les by accessioning archivists in Germany (Ernst 1999, p. 18) and the
United States (Brown 1998, p. 23).

representations through appraisal/selection,


organization,8 and cataloging.
Following Garnkels (1984 [1967]) ethnomethodological analysis of medical records,
another approach examines the role of power in
archives composition. Some research archivists
have examined the creation of records, the
raw material that will (if passing the selection
threshold) become archived. Garnkel explores
how doctors create patients records that are
sufcient for the patients immediate treatment,
but are inadequate for administrators or epidemiologists. He makes clear the Good Organizational Reasons for Bad Clinic Records
(his title). Later, Yakel studied how radiography records were created, transmitted around
a hospital, then stored (1997, 2001). In another domain, Cicourel (1968), Morash (1984),
and Coulthard (2002) examined the creation
and use of legal records. Considering these approaches, Trace (2002) distinguished the purpose from the use of a record (p. 143). A record
may be created for one purpose but used for
other ends: [R]ecords are more than purely
technical facts, requiring an understanding
of records as social entities, where records are
produced, maintained, and used in socially organized ways (2002, p. 152). Her work connects explicitly to the social study of science (see
Shankar 2002, 2004).
The purpose/use distinction parallels one
made by archival historians: Between sources
intended to inform, created with an evidential
purpose, and the evidence of witnesses in spite
of themselves, sources never intended to be
part of the historical record but which were
nonetheless archived becoming more valuable
for that9 [Olwig (1984) and Bastian (2003, p. 77)

8
Derrida (1995, p. 10) describes an archive as a prison for
documents (under house arrest). This notion evokes Cliffords (1985, p. 240) discussions of museums as appropriating
objects and Foucaults (1977) work on prisons.
9
Archival records are the by-products of human activity. At
their most transparent they are unselfconscious creations intended not to interpret or investigate a particular topic but
to complete a normal and often routine transaction. In modern archival theory, such records derive reliability and authenticity as evidence; consequently they result from activity

www.annualreviews.org Anthropology in and of the Archives

463

AN41CH28-Zeitlyn

ARI

16 August 2012

19:27

credit Bloch (1954, p. 51) with the phrase]. Assmann (2010, p. 99, citing Burkhardt) similarly
distinguishes messages (consciously aimed at
the future) from traces (present signs without
future intention, which survive and become historical remains).10 The idea of accidental witnesses of future, albeit unintentional, signicance leads to the next section.

ARCHIVES AS INSTRUMENTS
OF SUBVERSION
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2012.41:461-480. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by University of Michigan - Ann Arbor on 02/22/13. For personal use only.

Foucault and Derrida also develop the idea of


archives challenging the hegemony just considered. This relates to Foucaults archeology
of knowledge: Close reading and assiduous
research (mining the archive) allow us to excavate hidden or silenced voices, such as that
of the parricide Pierre Rivi`ere (1982, discussed
in Sheringham 2011) allowing an insurrection
of subjugated knowledges (Foucault 1980,
p. 81). Derrida sees the archive as containing
excess, disrupting its own bounds ( J. Bajorek,
forthcoming manuscript; Ricur 1988, p. 125).
Both approaches conclude that, pace the section above, we are not complete prisoners
of the archive, that thought is not (totally)
determined, so we can consider other voices.
Therefore, we can excavate and recover subjugated voices from archives of women (Davies
1987, Burton 2003), the insane (Foucault
1967), and religious dissidents (Ladurie 1978).
Yet Derrida and Foucaults other arguments
imply its impossibility [Comaroff & Comaroff
(1992, p. 16) cite Ginzberg against the pessimistic quietism accompanying acceptance of
such impossibility]. With care and assiduity, it
is possible to understand people from archives

itself, and are not conscious or deliberate efforts to inuence thought ( Jimerson 2003). Sadly, as Jimerson recognizes, this is optimistic as a general statement: It is true of
many records but not for all. Some records are created to
protect their creators. Others are deleted to the same end.
Archival diplomatics studies the forensic trails and patterns
of creation/deletion and recasting.
10

For Ricur (1988), the trace is the warrant a document


provides for history (p. 117).

464

Zeitlyn

in ways never intended or envisaged by those


creating or maintaining the archives.11
There is no view from nowhere (Levy
1998, p. 168): Every ethnography, history, and
archive is positioned or biased in one or many
ways. This does not make archival (or any
other) research worthless; rather, we must deal
with the positionality or bias of the accounts.
There are two general strategies for doing so.
The Comaroffs read against the grain (1991,
pp. 52/53, citing Benjamin 1968, p. 257) using
sources such as newspapers and songs [calling
them textual traces (Comaroff & Comaroff
1992, p. 33)] to help interpret records in conventional archives. For them, archives contain
arguments and are dialogical: [A]s anthropologists, therefore, we must work both in and outside of the ofcial record (p. 34). This notion
parallels Derridas suggestions about the implications of excess and contradiction: Archives are
sometimes unconscious maps of the mundane
(Comaroff & Comaroff 1992, p. 36; see also
Savage 2005; Dados 2009; Geiger et al. 2010,
pp. 25, 26; Roque & Wagner 2012, pp. 23
24). We can study this process by considering archival ethnographies. The history that
would comprise an ethnography of the archive,
a history of the practice of the archive, would
neglect neither the user in the past nor the
user who writes these words, the ostensible
historian ( Joyce 1999, p. 37). Indeed, for
the Comaroffs (1992), [A]n ethnography of
this archive begins to disinter the processes by
which disparate, even divisive, discourses were
fused into a consistent ideology (p. 35). In
an important monograph, Stoler (2009) took
up the challenge with a signicant twist. She
reads Along the Archival Grain (her title) to
identify the biases and preoccupations of the
creators of archived documents. This reading
sees archives as systems of expectation (Stoler

11

East German Stasi agents found it inconceivable until


shortly before German reunication that anyone else would
ever access their archives (Assmann 2010). This strange innocence makes the biases easier to read than in archived documents created with an eye to the future (see Trouillot 1995,
Freshwater 2007).

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2012.41:461-480. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org


by University of Michigan - Ann Arbor on 02/22/13. For personal use only.

AN41CH28-Zeitlyn

ARI

16 August 2012

19:27

1992, p. 109).12 Considering material from the


Caribbean, Trouillot (1995) encourages us to
think about the power plays affecting silences,
determining which stories get told and which
leave traces (p. 29). Recognizing this, we can
read the silences: Reading archival absences
against the grain is a way of making silence
speak (see Pels 1997, p. 166).
The work of the subaltern studies group
(e.g., Guha 1983) in South Asia exemplies
these approaches, using an understanding of
how records were created (reading along the
grain) to recover history from below (reading
across the grain). Working on material from the
same region in broadly the same tradition are
Bayly (1996), Burton (2003), Cohn (1987), and
his student Dirks (1993). Other examples are in
collections on the history of anthropology (e.g.,
Stocking 1991, Pels & Salemink 1999).
However, not all can be excavated of what
lingers along and across the archival grain. Although I cited above Trouillots (1995) use of
silences in history and making them speak, this
process is not always possible. Ballantyne (2001,
p. 94) cites Spivak against Foucault and the
project of recovery. The answer to Spivaks
question, [C]an the subaltern speak? (at least
for women), is often no. Discussing images of
slaves, Best (2010) concludes that the archival
disguration of any record of the enslaved may
have been so intense [. . .] as to bar any hope of
recovery and render the enslaved all but irretrievable (p. 158). Sometimes the past is truly
lost. But we cannot know a priori what is lost
without trying. Some extraordinary research
(cited above) has succeeded in writing history
(and ethnography) from below.
Michelets nineteenth-century resurrectionist history (1863) partly anticipated
Foucault. It brings the dead to life by restoring knowledge of their names. This approach
has particular resonance for those working
on photographic archives: Knowing a name

renders an image more than a nice photograph.


It connects photographs as (social) objects to
the lives of their subjects. For visual theorists,
in Michelets spirit, putting names to faces is
redemptive (whether of the people or the images). However, Farge (1989) sounds a balanced
caution: Historical (or ethnographic) research
does not revive the dead, but passes them on to
future others so that more stories can be built
on their enigmatic presences (p. 145).13
Enigmatic or ghostly, more or less substantial, our families dead, alive, and as yet unborn:
These are the people we relate to. Our relations to these people mark and affect humans
now, as they always have. Thinking about
archives, traces left by people in paper records
or as archaeological remains, illuminates the
complexity of interrelationships across time
and space. Nora (1989, p. 13) sees modern
memory as obsessed with archives, another take
on archive fever. Echoing Derrida, Stewart
(1993 [1984]) closes her book about museums
and the desire to collect with the thought that
names on labels are another attempt to belie
mortality. We must ask if names alone are
enough. Perhaps we should accept that often
we are only left with enigma.

Archives as Liminal Phase (Between


Memory and Forgetting)
Even enigmas can fade with time. Another
approach to archives deems them a liminal
zone, between memory and forgetting. Assmann (2010) provides a clear account. Her
starting point is that we must forget in order
to remember. Ordinary humans are not like
Funes the Memorious in Borgess (1964)
story, remembering everything, forgetting
nothing. For Borges, [T]o think is to forget
a difference, to generalize, to abstract (p. 71).
So memory, including cultural memory,
is always permeated and shot through with

12

This alerts us to collaboration in archive creation: Colonized subjects were clerks (and more), writing documents in
colonial archives under orders from, and sometimes in discussion with, their colonial masters.

13

See Crowley (2007) on the importance of names for Pierre


Michon; see Zeitlyn (2008, pp. 16768) for a similar position
on life writing.
www.annualreviews.org Anthropology in and of the Archives

465

ARI

16 August 2012

19:27

forgetting. In order to remember anything


one has to forget; but what is forgotten is
not necessarily lost forever (Assmann 2010,
pp. 1056). For Assmann, both memory and
archives have active and passive aspects. Of
memory, she says, The institutions of active
memory preserve the past as present while the
institutions of passive memory preserve the
past as past (2010, p. 98, emphases in original).
However, she further distinguishes among
political archives, tools of power [e.g., the Stasi
archives in East Germany (p. 103)], and historical archives, once but no longer of immediate
use, preserved inert for future uses/contexts.
If in the truly long term we are all, if not forgotten, at best archaeology, then the archive is
a liminal state, demonstrating optimism about
the long term, which is even more important
for being unfounded.14 This viewpoint sees the
archive as a liminal zone where objects, les,
and memories may be lost or retrieved. Taylor
(2003) calls this the politics of ephemerality,
the power to choose to preserve/remember
(pp. 17374, 19293) or to forget. Discussing
photographs of the disappeared in Argentina,
she examines archives political role and their
function as performance installations (p. 178).
Seeing archives as liminal zones in rites
of passage between memory and forgetting
ts well with Noras suggestion that lieux de
memoire (realms of memory; Kritzman 1996)
replace milieux de memoire [more general settings in which memory is part of everyday experience (Nora 1989, p. 7)]. As the past becomes
unimportant in everyday life, we valorize museums and archives instead (Velody 1998, p. 13;
Hutchens 2007, p. 38). Stoler (2009) suggests
that rather than being the tomb of the trace,
the archive is more frequently the product of
the anticipation of collective memory (p. 16).
Trouillot (1995) examined the role of
archives as mediators, bridging times, places,
and people in Haiti, despite the lacunae

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2012.41:461-480. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org


by University of Michigan - Ann Arbor on 02/22/13. For personal use only.

AN41CH28-Zeitlyn

14
The Long Now Foundation (http://www.longnow.org/)
explores the implications of thinking in the seriously long
term.

466

Zeitlyn

and silences they contain (p. 52). This view


parallels the role of ethnographic museums as
contact zones (Pratt 1991, Clifford 1997),
especially when indigenous museums (Erikson
et al. 2002, p. 31) act as mediators between
indigenous groups and the public, anthropologists, and other researchers. The complexity
of such mediation is brought out in studies
of museums (and archives) as institutions
and of the archivists who work in them (see
below). Ricur (1988) considers another type
of mediation, seeing archival documents as
mediating traces connecting past and present
[p. 123; see Fabian (2008) and Meehan (2009)
on the archival nexus]. Similar ideas about
photographs view them as traces, which the
viewer uses to construct (evoke) a person
(discussed in Zeitlyn 2008).
Meehan (2009) discusses Yeos suggestion
that evidence and memory [. . .] be thought of as
affordances (or properties or functions) provided by records. An archival concept of evidence as a relation between record and event
offers one explanation for how and why records
are capable of fullling the role of touchstones
or providing whatever affordances they are capable of offering (p. 160). The path actually
taken depends on interactions among readers,
documents, and archivists.
Concluding this section, consider archivists
as mediators, agents in the research process.
Archivists select material for archiving and
mediate in the process of research: helping
researchers nd documents, suggesting relevant new materials, and helping researchers
frame a good question (Nardi & ODay 1996,
Trace 2006). They are generally more knowledgeable than researchers about the quirks of
their archives. They understand how the catalogs work, the idiosyncrasies that can hide
material under terms obscure to outsiders.
Marquis (2007) sees archivists as mediators
between records creators and records repositories, between archives and users, between
conceptions of the past and extant documentation (p. 36). Taking this seriously, we must
consider archives as complex social organizations, studying them anthropologically to

AN41CH28-Zeitlyn

ARI

16 August 2012

19:27

produce ethnographies of archives, works of


archiveology.

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2012.41:461-480. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org


by University of Michigan - Ann Arbor on 02/22/13. For personal use only.

Archiveology/Museology
Dirks (2002) suggested the need for an ethnography of the archive in his call to historicize
the archive (p. 48). His view responds to Derrida: [N]ormally the archive is self-effacing
we discuss the contents but not the structures
which have resulted in those contents being
there and surviving. A sociology (anthropology) of the archive changes the frame (Derrida
1995, p. 58). Studies of record creation, the raw
material for archives, were cited above. There
are few ethnographic studies of archives as institutions (Yakel 1997, Gracy 2001, Shankar
2002, Trace 2004). They have not used the
term archiveology for what they do, although
it seems appropriate (see Katz 1991, p. 98).
[O]ne might imagine [. . .] a history of the relevant agents of the archive. It would be a history
of at least two kinds of peoplearchivists and
historianswho tend to inhabit such dry, dark,
forbidding places (Osborne 1999, p. 52).
Although the importance of Stoler and
Burtons work is widely recognized, these
authors use archival material more often than
studying archives themselves. Bastians substantial study (2003) focuses on an individual
archive qua institution.15 Steedman (2002)
and Farge [1989 reviewed by Carrard (2002)]
describe, in very different styles, the process
of working in archives from the researchers
viewpoint and provide autoethnographies

15

Some key collections contain article-length accounts:


Hamilton et al. (2002), Burton (2005), and Blouin & Rosenberg (2007), and in two special issues of The History of the Human Sciences, Volumes 11 (in 1998) and 12 (in 1999). Recently,
a largely Canadian collection has appeared: Eastwood &
MacNeil (2010). Papers from a UK seminar series on Archiving and Reusing Qualitative Data in 2008 and 2009 are online
at http://www.restore.ac.uk/archiving_qualitative_data/
projects/archive_series/papers.shtml. Papers from the
Fieldwork Between Folders conference ( July 2011) are
summarized in Roque & Wagner (2011). Gilliland & McKemmish (2004) provide an important survey of the scope of
archival studies, including anthropology. Whatley & Brown
(2010) summarize the Investigating the Archive project.

of undertaking archival research. Relevant


parallels lie in anthropological approaches to
museums (museology) (e.g., Handler & Gable
1997, Macdonald 2002, Fyfe 2006, Gosden &
Larson 2007, Isaac 2007).

An Embarrassment of Metaphors
Perhaps such literature suggests that the archive
concept has been a fashion victim and risks collapsing under the weight of metaphoric overextension. If everything is an archive, then what
do we call the buildings that house the old les?
If everything is an archive, then everything we
do and think is conditioned by and part of the
archive, so the word tells us nothing. Perhaps
too many uses and meanings are being loaded
onto the term, replicating an aspect of what
an archive is: a collection of more or less connected, and more or less disordered, disparate
entities (often but not always documents).
One example is Derridas use of Freud.
Derrida sees repression as a form of archiving:
repression as putting items out of consciousness, archiving as putting items out of circulation and public awareness (see Assman on
forgetting, above). He also invokes Freuds parallel between circumcision creating disjuncta
and the archive as being a repository of dismembered parts. Such metaphors may be provocative and intriguing, but they also provoke a different response, reecting on the ways in which
archiving is not like repression and is nonviolent. Like much grand theory, this depends on
taste and temperament. What excites one theoretician irritates another, and we have yet to
address how these ideas may relate to evidence.
Consider two instances of overextension:
rst, archive as memory, and second, Internet
as archive.
Archive as memory. Assman and others
emphasize the role of archives in processes
of memory and forgetting (see also Foote
1990, Craig 2002). Jimerson (2003) identies
four types of memory: personal, collective,
historical, and archival, seeing archives as
repositories of memory. An individual has
www.annualreviews.org Anthropology in and of the Archives

467

ARI

16 August 2012

19:27

personal memories (often aided in recent


years and in some cultural traditions by
records, photographs, and prompts from
family members). A social group recognizes
and discusses collective or social memories
[see Bloch (1998) on the complex relationship
between personal autobiographical and social
knowledge]. According to Jimerson, historical
memory is the narrative produced by historians
on the basis of artifacts such as archival records
and testimony from individuals. He discusses
archival memory but does not explore how it
relates to personal memory.
Steedman (2002) is vehement that memory
is not like an archive (p. 68). As she points out,
archives have (some) boundaries and are themselves human creations. Archivists reject and
discard items in ways profoundly different from
how forgetting occurs, and in ways that are irremediable (unlike memory, where what is forgotten can sometimes be recalled) such as les
marked in an archival catalog as destroyed by
enemy action during the Second World War
(p. 68).
Rose (2009) provides another demonstration of the difference. He discusses a study
of students describing the 2001 World Trade
Center attack, restating their accounts a year
later. He comments that the huge discrepancies between their rst and second accounts
indicated just how labile memories of quite dramatic events are. Far from passively recording
the past, we in our memories actively reconstruct it (p. 66). So records are not memories,
but rather are the triggers or touchstones that
lead to the recollection of past events (Meehan
2009, p. 160; see also Best 2010, p. 152).
This active reconstruction affects not only
personal and collective memories, but also,
on a slower scale, historical memory: Each
generation constructs new narratives about the
past, often on the basis of the same bodies of
evidence.

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2012.41:461-480. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org


by University of Michigan - Ann Arbor on 02/22/13. For personal use only.

AN41CH28-Zeitlyn

The Internet as archive. Many authors describe the Internet as an archive (e.g., Ogle
2010). There are important limits to this claim.
Archivists shape archives, deciding what goes in
468

Zeitlyn

and how it is cataloged. The World Wide Web


apparently (misleadingly16 ) admits everything
and is automatically indexed, not cataloged. Indexing problems led to the development of the
Semantic Web with more intelligent links and indexes. It has been less successful than the World
Wide Web. Some people see user-created tagging as an alternative to the strictly dened
ontologies of the Semantic Web (Shirky 2008).
Also, as critics of search engines have pointed
out, although Google, Bing, etc., index most
(not all) of the Web, if the reference you seek
is among ve million hits, then it is, practically,
lost and inaccessible. Archivists (or their equivalents) still play a vital role in creating and managing the metadata on which search engines rely
when responding to searches. Moreover, much
education is still needed in the logic and implications of searching (Grigg 1991, GillilandSwetland 2000).
Following these caveats about conceptual
approaches to archives, I conclude this half
by considering two relatively new, underdeveloped (hopefully provocative) models.

Two Models for Archives


I next consider two different approaches, which
may form the basis of alternative ways of thinking about archives. These are orphanages (or
hospices) and performance records (records of
performances).
Orphanages or hospices. Orphan works are
prominent in discussions of copyright (Usai
1999, Strateg. Content Alliance et al. 2009).
These works have no traceable author or copyright holder. This lack poses problems for researchers and archivists (especially because the
fair use quotation rights for lm is less well established than for printed material): Permission
is needed to copy material in copyright. Copyright extends for up to 70 years beyond the

16

The so-called dark web includes materials not indexed: protected by passwords (hence inaccessible to indexing robots)
and in databases such as archive catalogs.

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2012.41:461-480. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org


by University of Michigan - Ann Arbor on 02/22/13. For personal use only.

AN41CH28-Zeitlyn

ARI

16 August 2012

19:27

death of the creator.17 If the creator is unknown,


one cannot know whether copyright persists.
Cohen and Usai report lmmakers using
orphan lms to great effect. Recently, some
archives such as the British Library sound
archive (containing many orphan recordings)
have made many sound recordings available for
researchers after agreeing on a series of protocols with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).18
For Cohen (2004), [T]he term lm archive
is ineffective in understanding the politics of
the complex lives of lms. [Usai (1999)] suggests that thinking of the archive as a lm orphanage evokes the broader reality of a lm
and its progeny. A lm print reproduces multiple offspring and potential orphans (p. 722).
Greetham (1999) talks of archives taking protective custody of material (p. i), which is to
use the language of the orphanage. However,
my section heading introduced the term hospice. Archives may be where documents follow a managed path to oblivion19 or the deadletter ofce of lived memory (Hutchens 2007,
p. 38). Anyone working on archived acid paper
has probably seen a document disintegrate as
they attempted to read it. Orphanage managers
tend to those in their care, deal with their administration, and hope that a secure and happy
future can be assured. Hospices seek to ensure
that death is well managed for the patients and
their families. The parallels with the work of
archivists are clear, but risk being exaggerated.

17

This explanation is highly simplied. Different jurisdictions have different rules, depending on whether the material
was published. Borgman (2007) and the Strategic Content Alliance, Korn, JISC & Collections Trust (2009) indicate more
authoritative sources on the complexities of copyright law.
For fair use rights in lm see the Center for Social Media
(2005).

18

See http://www.bl.uk/aboutus/terms/index.html and


Torsen & Anderson (2010); also see the Mukurtu Traditional
Knowledge licenses online at http://www.mukurtu.org/
wiki/Manual:Traditional_Knowledge_Licenses.

Performance records. Theater studies suggest another model: Geiger et al. (2010, pp. 16,
17) discuss concerns about loss of context (of
interviews, etc.) limiting possible reuse of qualitative data. Performance studies are exemplary
because the score, script, even actual recording,
of a performance differ importantly from the
performance itself (no audience, no possibility
of responding to audience or other performers,
etc.). Much is lost, but performance archives
are still valuable. So archival material, particularly archives of anthropological research,
eld notes, and interview recordings, might
be viewed as archives of the performance of
research. Performance studies researchers have
long been thinking about the incompleteness
and partiality of archival records (see Taylor
200320 ; Schechner 1985, Jones et al. 2009).
Taylor views ethnographic eldwork as performance (2003, pp. 7578) and uses the idea of
surrogation (pp. 46, 174, citing Roach) to capture the active processes of creation/recreation
and of cultural transmission, viewing cultural
memory as a process, hence a performance. So
archival materials are surrogates of the events
that created them (and digitized records are
surrogates of physical originals). Phelan (1993)
stresses the impossibility of archiving performances as performances (their status is different
when accessed via recordings) and that interviews (ethnographic or not) are themselves performances because they are (more or less structured) human interactions. Geiger et al. (2010)
conclude, [M]any researchers retain qualitative
research material beyond the end of a particular project suggesting that they can imagine
reusing the material themselves. Nevertheless,
the ephemeral nature of the interview as a performance presents a challenge both to the researcher reusing the qualitative data and those
conducting qualitative interviews (p. 18).
Combining these two ideas produces a
model of archives as orphanages for (more or
less fragile) surrogates, some of which may not

19

As some Native American groups desire, see First Archivists


Circle (2007, p. 8). Geary (1994) explores such a consignment to oblivion in early medieval archivization (pp. 81
114).

20

Her distinction between archive and repertoire parallels


Assmanns between archive and canon.
www.annualreviews.org Anthropology in and of the Archives

469

AN41CH28-Zeitlyn

ARI

16 August 2012

19:27

survive for long. This notion provides a different viewpoint on the discussion above, especially whether the dead can be given voice, restored to named agency, subverting the present.
How to care for future (possibly subversive)
traces without knowing which surrogates will
be signicant is part of the fascination (and tension) of running an archive.

PART TWO: ARCHIVES


OF ANTHROPOLOGY

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2012.41:461-480. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org


by University of Michigan - Ann Arbor on 02/22/13. For personal use only.

Archiving Anthropologists Work


Anthropology has always been reexive: Malinowskis diary is exemplary, as are Haddons
earlier diaries. Even before Malinowski became
so inuential, there were moves to archive
the records of missionaries21 , explorers, and
anthropologists. Leaving aside connections
between archiving and reexivity, and the
contentious issue of whether the products of
anthropological research are data, I concentrate
here on other current debates.
At the risk of obvious anachronism, when
the oldest archives were created (such as the
Smithsonian Institutions National Anthropological Archives and the UKs Royal Anthropological Institute archives) ethical concerns
(about content, possible uses, and access) were
not discussed. Before considering recent initiatives and problems of digital preservation,
I consider anthropologists, their reluctance to
archive eld notes, and ethics codes.

Tensions Within Ethics Codes:


Conflicting Guidelines
Supplemental Material

Supplemental Appendix 2 contains extracts


from relevant ethics codes about archiving and
anonymization. I note the following tensions
between and among them.

Anonymization
Anonymization is difcult to achieve (especially
with photographic and video records), costly

to implement, and may fail to mask identities


from those intent on identifying informants.
One can rarely anonymize ofce holders or
those in positions of power and responsibility
(see Corti et al. 2000, 2005; and especially Rock
2001). Anonymization removes material from
the purview of the UK Freedom of Information
or Data Protection Acts (and equivalent legislation in other countries). However, anonymization keys, if retained, are liable to formal request under those statutes, thereby breaking
anonymity, so archival anonymization must be
all or nothing. Even the researcher must be unable to undo it.
The UK Data Protection Act (DPA) allows
personal records to be retained as long as the
results are anonymized.22 However, successful anonymization of a body of research material would prevent future researchers (historians such as Steedman and Foucault, following
Michelet, or anthropological historians, such as
Macfarlane or Laslett) from undertaking some
of their work, and it precludes the descendants
of the people no-longer-named from discovering what their ancestors said; therefore, these
records may be less useful to indigenous communities than to those with names retained.23
A default assumption that notes will be
anonymized conicts with an individuals moral
right to be recognized as the author of his or
her words. There is a signicant difference in
the default presumptions in the codes between
social science (assuming anonymity) and oral
history [assuming that names will be preserved,
unless special factors obtain (Ward 1995;
Caplan 2010, p. 17)]. Indeed, Parry &
Mauthner (2004) suggest oral history as a model
of good practice for qualitative sociologists, and
Hopi anthropologist Hartman Lomawaima
suggests that anonymity perpetuates a we-they
attitude, implying that only anthropologists can
make sense of traditional data (Fowler 1995,

22
http://www.soas.ac.uk/infocomp/dpa/policy/use/ provides a concise summary.
23

21

See http://www.mundus.ac.uk/ for archives of UK-based


missionary organizations.
470

Zeitlyn

Jolly (2008) discusses potential issues arising from returning (or enabling access to) the Griault archives to Mali; see
also Childs et al. (2011).

AN41CH28-Zeitlyn

ARI

16 August 2012

19:27

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2012.41:461-480. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org


by University of Michigan - Ann Arbor on 02/22/13. For personal use only.

p. 67). Finally, the UK DPA does not protect


the dead, nor give rights to their relatives (an
individual cannot make a DPA request, which
a deceased relative could have requested when
alive). Simpson (2011) discusses mismatches
between ethical review procedures and actual
ethnographic research by stressing differences
between the ethics of the human subjects and
social subjects (p. 380).
Caplan (2010) has already discussed many of
these issues:
[T]his is a way of giving back data to the people with whom we have worked, and serving as
their record-keepers.[. . .]Archiving forces us
to put our material in order in a way we might
not otherwise have done, so that it becomes at
least partially intelligible to others and, [. . .]
enables us too to view it from another angle.
Thirdly, it allows other scholars to make use
of our data, perhaps somewhat differently than
we might have done ourselves given the fact
that they will read it with their own eyes, not
ours. But it also enables us to leave behind for
others material we have not published, since
most social scientists collect far more than they
are ever able to use. Finally, it enables comparison not only between our own work and that
of others, but also, [. . .] between our prepublication data and what we write and publish.
In this respect, it gives glimpses into the construction of knowledge.
Yet archiving data also [. . .] moves things
out of our control. We sign deposit forms
which give copyright to the holding institution, and which allow the material to be read,
looked at or listened to by many other people,
including, potentially, the subjects of the research. Who knows what all of these people
will make of it? In that respect, we are indeed
hostages to fortune. (p. 17)

unknown others who might use it in novel ways


(including ction writing). Can a researcher
obtain meaningful prior informed consent if the
uses to which the material might be put in the
future cannot be explained (Parry & Mauthner
2004, p. 147)? Some ethicists take this to mean
that anthropological material, like medical
samples, should be destroyed to prevent reuse
without new explicit permissions. Paradoxically
most anthropologists want neither to destroy
their eld material nor to archive it. Academic
anthropologists expect to consult their eld
notes throughout their career for various
research purposes. Many argue that ethics
codes, which deem this practice illegitimate,
are awed. Participatory research24 provides
a (partial) solution, which ts much social and
cultural anthropological research at the price
of discomforting ethics committees. Under
this model, little is set in advance: neither the
detailed topic of research nor consent to participate (and archive). Topic(s), archiving protocols, and publication authorship are repeatedly
renegotiated during the research process. After
eldwork, it may be impossible to renegotiate in
person, but hopefully the process of eldwork
will establish parameters that equip a responsible anthropologist to decide whether to
archive, and if so on what conditions. Hope but
hope with guidance is as good as it gets. Signatures on paper may satisfy bureaucrats (ethical
Institutional Review Board committees) and facilitate legal cases but provide no guarantee that
the spirit of the agreement will be honored. Anderson & Younging (2010) argue for protocols
(rather than rules or laws) to provide practical
and helpful guidance by recognizing the need
for situational, culturally sensitive, exibility.
Campbells review (2010) concludes that
the participative frame and collaboration have
limits. Particular problems do exist for those
studying up (or studying through25 ): Not

Consent
Ethics codes stipulate that consent for archiving
should be discussed with research participants,
but this is particularly difcult to obtain. Once
material is archived, it may be consulted by

24

See
http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/researchethics/5-5infcons.html for consent and participatory research (in
Supplemental Appendix 3).

25

Campbell (2010, p. 8) credits Shore & Wright (1997) for


this expression.
www.annualreviews.org Anthropology in and of the Archives

471

ARI

16 August 2012

19:27

only may anonymity be unachievable, but the


research subjects can prevent publication if they
disagree with conclusions reached. If there is
a professional injunction to speak truth to
power, then what is ethically appropriate action (Simpson 2011, p. 382)? There are countervailing professional injunctions. For example, the development professionals who clashed
with Mosse (see Campbells discussion) are unlikely to grant access to other anthropologists,
so Mosses research closed doors for future researchers. An archive of the controversy surrounding his analysis may prove important for
future historians of power and development
policy in late-20th-century United Kingdom
and India. Perhaps such materials should be
archived only under an embargo (creating a
dark archive; Harvard Univ. Libr. Mellon
Proj. Steer. Comm. 2002) so that researchers
must wait until, say, 2070 to read the documents. Although anthropologists have long
studied up (Nader 1969, Forsythe 2001), ethics
codes say little of the special ethical dilemmas
posed by research on high-status, power individuals.26 Macdonald (2002) is an exception,
accepting the impossibility of anonymization
in her study of the London Science Museum
(p. 13).

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2012.41:461-480. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org


by University of Michigan - Ann Arbor on 02/22/13. For personal use only.

AN41CH28-Zeitlyn

Doublethink and Reluctance


Preserving the Anthropological Record (Silverman
& Parezo 1995) and Fieldnotes (Sanjek 1990)
discuss researchers possessiveness about their
data (see also Zeitlyn 2000, Mason 2007).
They were written long before social movements such as Open Science and Creative Commons (except within computer software) and
before funders began to mandate the archiving
of data collected with their support (see Molinie
& Mouton 2008, section 4). If public funds pay
for material (data) to be collected, then taxpayers should have access to what their taxes

bought.27 This policy directly contradicts some


ethnic groups cultural traditions concerning
secrecy and controlled access to information
(Isaac 2011).
Many anthropologists surveyed by Jackson
(1990) exemplify the contradictions Derrida
identied surrounding archives. They were
reluctant to cede or to allow access to their eld
notes, fearing loss of control or that they might
expose themselves and their failings. Yet they
were reluctant to ensure that this will never
happen by burning or contemplating other
forms of destruction ( Jackson 1990, p. 10;
see also Mayer-Schonberger
2009). Povinelli

(2011) is refreshingly honest about considering


the destruction of her research archives (p. 169).
Jackson also reports reluctance to consider
explicitly correlates of mortality28 : not leaving
instructions in wills about research material, or
not thinking through the implications of archiving.29 Pienta et al. (2010) discuss reticence,
condentiality concerns, and the benets of
sharing in social science. The potential for reuse
is repeatedly questioned yet also sometimes
clearly demonstrated: Cunha (2006) discusses
creating the Ruth Landes archive. Bond, Lutkehaus, and Plath (each in Sanjek 1990) explore
their involvement with others eld notes, as
do others (see the 2008 special issue of Ateliers
dAnthropologie: Lethnologue aux prises avec les
archives, edited by Molinie & Mouton). To anthropologists who say their notes are worthless
or undecipherable ( Jackson 1990, p. 10), apart
from asking why then the notes are retained at
all, the proper rejoinder is that it is not all or
nothing [de Pina-Cabral (2011); Mason (2007)
calls for investigative epistemologies to break
such dichotomies]. The writer of the eld note

27

Harnads original argument applied to scientic results


published in commercial published journals, which are inaccessible to most of the public. The debate has been generalized to include data on which publications are based.

28

This reects unwillingness by many to contemplate their


own mortality; many people die without a will.

26

See an online tutorial (especially the section on reexivity): http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/researchethics/3-7reflexethics.html citing the UK ESRC Ethics Framework.

472

Zeitlyn

29

Depositing papers creates an expensive archiving task. If


possible, a donors will should provide funds to cover their
accession/indexing.

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2012.41:461-480. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org


by University of Michigan - Ann Arbor on 02/22/13. For personal use only.

AN41CH28-Zeitlyn

ARI

16 August 2012

19:27

is its ideal reader,30 for whom a note might jog


a memory, recovering headnotes: eld notes
made and kept in the head (Ottenburg 1990,
p. 144). However, other readers may still get
something from them. Lutkehaus describes
how her reading of Wedgwoods eld notes
changed after she visited their shared eld site.
I beneted from reading Rehschs notes in
the village where he made them.
I offer a nal thought on reluctance and
openness. To destroy eld material is an extreme assertion of ownership. Despite feelings
of ownership, many professional anthropologists need a quasi-Marxist reminder that, as employees, legally they do not own the fruits of
their labors (Parry & Mauthner 2004, p. 141).
Destruction is an extraordinary assertion of
power (an act of hubris) and prevents colleagues
from the communities studied from reconsidering our work, as the Dogon anthropologist
Denis Doyon (2008) did with Griaults papers.
Others modestly say that archiving is only for
big names. Leopold (2008) from the US National Anthropological Archives responds:
Our decision to collect and preserve ethnographic eldnotes produced by all American
anthropologists reects our profound belief
that primary ethnographic data is extremely
valuable, even materials produced by lessknown academics and those who publish relatively little. In fact, [. . .] these materials may
have even greater value because the results
of their research have never been published.
They include materials that document regions
of the world that continue to undergo rapid
social and cultural change. As such, their eld
notes preserve a unique record of social life.
(section 15, emphasis in original)

questions and often complement archival work


by research with living informants. Researchers
such as Stoler, Dirks, and Macfarlane straddle disciplinary boundaries. Space here prohibits discussion of the archives anthropologists
use for research except where they are archives
of anthropology, holding material collected by
anthropological researchers. As noted above,
some important archives were established in
the nineteenth century. It is unclear whether
the existing archives can cope with the material which will require archiving when the post
World War II anthropologists retire and die
(see footnote 30 above).
Supplemental Appendix 2 lists key starting
points, including archives with substantial
holdings of early material, those dealing
with research after World War II and that
of contemporary anthropologists, and key
organizations that provide overviews and
guidance, such as the US Council for the
Preservation of Anthropological Records, the
French Corpus: Infrastructure de Recherche,
and the UKs Qualidata.31 A special issue
of Forum: Qualitative Social Research surveys
current European provision (see Corti 2011).

Supplemental Material

Preservation Problems
for Digital Archives
Notes made on paper, traditional photographic
prints, and negatives on safety lm, left under a
bed, will probably be readable 100 years hence.
The opposite is true of digital records. Continually changing technology for storing and reading digital archives necessitates active curation
to maintain current (let alone future) access.
Horror stories are legion about data trapped on
media that are no longer readable. The UKs
Digital Curation Centre pioneered efforts to

Archives of Anthropology
Anthropologists and historians research the
same archives. Anthropologists ask different

30

Molinie & Mouton (2008, section 16) point out they are
also best placed to collaborate with archivists in the process
of archival deposit, with future researchers in mind.

31

Part of the Economic and Social Data Service (ESDS), this


has a specialist catalog dedicated to qualitative data, including a few anthropological archives (100 in August 2011),
and Qualidata hosts data from some of them. The number
is misleadingly small: The archive also contains many important data sets from oral-history researchers, reecting the
inuence of Paul Thompson, one of its founders.
www.annualreviews.org Anthropology in and of the Archives

473

AN41CH28-Zeitlyn

ARI

16 August 2012

19:27

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2012.41:461-480. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org


by University of Michigan - Ann Arbor on 02/22/13. For personal use only.

establish practical solutions to these problems,


providing guidance for individuals and institutions (see http://www.dcc.ac.uk/).
It is costlier (in labor and infrastructure)
to maintain digital archives than paper-based
ones. This fact is unlikely to change in the
foreseeable future. However, digital archives
scale better than paper-based ones (holding size
could double without increasing costs significantly), and they enable access to people in
many places in ways impossible for traditional
archives. This situation raises complex and
radical possibilities.

CONCLUSIONS: TOWARD
RADICAL ARCHIVES
Working collaboratively in Australia, Povinelli
(2011) dreamt of an archive accessible via a
smartphone with built-in GPS. The phone
knows the identity and location of the user, and
the archive software is set up to display material
conditioned by those two variables and by the
users interests. Imagine an Australian sacred
site: Sitting in Sydney or New York, a young
man without kin ties to the site may see a very
different (reduced) set of material than might
an old woman from Europe near the site, who
herself would see different material from a man
born nearby. I use the word dream to connect
to some Australian aborigine cultural traditions,
but Povinelli is not being fantastical: The technology to build such a system exists and could
easily be realized.
This would be a Radical Archive (Geismar
2012). These are archives radically rethought
and managed in ways unlike anything assumed
in previous discussions concerning legal
structures, privacy debates, or the models of
openness explicit in Cultural Commons licenses [see Brown (1998), especially p. 198, for
discussion of wider conicts; see Isaac (2011)
for case studies, including a provocative comparison of attempts to control distribution and
access to material by representatives of Zuni
Pueblo and the Church of Scientology]. As
exemplied by some museums working with indigenous groups individually (e.g., Denver, see
474

Zeitlyn

Colwell-Chanthaphonh 2011) and collectively


(e.g., The Reciprocal Research Network32 ),
radical archives pose important questions for
anthropologists considering archiving research
material.
Colwell-Chanthaphonh
(2011)
notes the varying attitudes of different ethnic
groups: There may not be unanimity within
a group, and attitudes may change over time.
For example, born-again Christians can be
enthusiastic (literal) iconoclasts. Can archivists
adjudicate between demands from those who
repudiate idolatry to destroy pagan symbolism
and those who respect its powers (holding
that only they can be entrusted with its care)?
Colwell-Chanthaphonh recognizes the dilemmas this complexity poses for museum curators
and archivists. Mitigating complexity obliges
administrators to engage with groups who
historically have not been party to discussions.
This practice will not right the wrongs of
invasion, colonization, or capitalism, but it is
achievable within the small frame of an archive.
I note one important caution: Much exemplary
work is being undertaken in Australia and
North America. The cultural norms of these
groups should not be imposed on groups
elsewhere anymore than those groups should
be forced to follow the norms of Western
Europe (Descola 1998, p. 209). Not all cultural
traditions stress secrecy (as do Zuni) or respect
for the dead by suppressing photographs of the
deceased (as occurs in Australian traditions).
What does this mean for anthropologists
with material (potentially) to archive? First,
they should look to their notes and hard drives
and organize (at least minimally) what they
have. Only then can there be meaningful discussion of possible routes to archiving. Then they
can discuss with representatives from the source
communities (if possible, if not already undertaken) and with possible repositories what can
and should be done. Conversations about possible archiving should occur beforehand, while

32

This project was codeveloped by two Native American


groups and a university museum; see http://www.rrnpilot.
org/.

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2012.41:461-480. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org


by University of Michigan - Ann Arbor on 02/22/13. For personal use only.

AN41CH28-Zeitlyn

ARI

16 August 2012

19:27

the material is being collected. That is the thrust


of ethics code guidance. However, we must be
realistic: Doctoral research is usually carried out
by young researchers who often talk to agemates in the eld. At that age, humans seem
myopic about aging and death, so it may be unrealistic to expect them to engage in meaningful
conversations about what will happen after they
die.
This is not to excuse doing nothing. When
doing research, when considering archiving research material, anthropologists are bound by
critical, ethical, and moral constraints as well
as by legal ones. Eschewing legalese, we seek
(a) to do no harm, (b) to do right by those with
whom we work, and (c) to help our successors as
much as is consonant with those two principles.
What this means in practice varies enormously
according to cultural context [limiting our ability to generalize meaningfully in the form of
edicts, guidelines, or protocols. Brown (1998,
p. 200) calls this ethical realism]. So, as individuals well placed to understand cultural specicities, we must determine the responsible position to archiving in each research circumstance,

through complex negotiations and discussions


with various agents. If that practice becomes the
norm, then progress will have been made.
Anthropologists place themselves betwixt
and between, as agents of the art and science of ethnographic research. The longterm consequences include complex and sometimes fraught relationships with the people
researched, with research funders, and with
archives. There are no simple answers (nor
should we seek any) to the question of whether
to archive, and if so how. Digital media increase
access, increase the different types of material
available, and increase the complexity of archive
management as well as the potential for misrepresentation, for creative reanalysis, and for
community involvement. However, the shift to
digital does not change profoundly the conceptual issues for anthropologists about their relationships to archives. As we have seen, these
connect to wider theoretical issues about how
representations are made and of what they consist and cannot be solved by simple reference to
ethics codes or committees. Archives are indeed
surrogates for anthropology.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The author is not aware of any afliations, memberships, funding, or nancial holdings that might
be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I have greatly beneted from discussions and correspondence on this topic with Jennifer
Bajorek, Pat Caplan, Louise Corti, Elizabeth Edwards, Haidy Geismar, Michael Sheringham,
and an anonymous reviewer for Annual Reviews. I am extremely grateful to them all for their
comments. Anna Rayne has helped me clarify the issues. Both she and I know how much I owe
her. The remaining faults, of course, are my own.

LITERATURE CITED
Anderson J, Younging G. 2010. Discussion Paper on Protocols. Can. Public Art Fund. (CPAF) Prof. Dev. Meet.
Aborig. Arts Sess. Protoc. http://www.sfu.ca/ipinch/sites/default/files/project_papers/research_
team_publications/aboriginal_arts_protocols_discussionpaper_for_canadian_public_art_funders_
anderson__younging.pdf
Appadurai A. 1993. Number in the colonial imagination. See Breckenridge & van der Veer 1993, pp. 31439
Asad T. 2002. Ethnographic representations, statistics and modern power. See Axel 2002, pp. 6691
www.annualreviews.org Anthropology in and of the Archives

475

ARI

16 August 2012

19:27

Assmann A. 2010. Canon and archive. In A Companion to Cultural Memory Studies. An International and Interdisciplinary Handbook, ed. A Erll, A Nunning,
pp. 97107. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter

Axel BK, ed. 2002. From the Margins: Historical Anthropology and its Futures. Durham, NC/London: Duke
Univ. Press
Ballantyne T. 2001. Archive, state, discipline: power and knowledge in South Asian historiography. N. Z. J.
Asian Stud. 3:87105
Bastian JA. 2003. Owning Memory: How a Caribbean Community Lost Its Archives and Found Its History. Westport,
CT: Libr. Unltd.
Bayly CA. 1996. Empire and Information: Intelligence Gathering and Social Communication in India, 17801870.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Best S. 2010. Neither lost nor found: slavery and the visual archive. Representations 113:15063
Bloch M. 1998. Autobiographical memory and the historical memory of the more distant past. In How We
Think They Think. Anthropological Approaches to Cognition, Memory, and Literacy, pp. 11427. Boulder, CO:
Westview
Bloch ML. 1954. The Historians Craft. Manchester, UK: Manchester Univ. Press
Blouin FX Jr, Rosenberg WG, eds. 2007. Archives, Documentation, and Institutions of Social Memory: Essays from
the Sawyer Seminar. Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press
Borges JL. 1964. Funes the memorious. In Labyrinths, pp. 6571. New York: New Dir.
Borgman CL. 2007. Scholarship in the Digital Age: Information, Infrastructure, and the Internet. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press
Bourdieu P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Breckenridge CA, van der Veer P, eds. 1993. Orientalism and the Postcolonial Predicament: Perspectives on South
Asia. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. Press
Brown MF. 1998. Can culture be copyrighted? Curr. Anthropol. 39:193222
Burton A. 2003. Dwelling in the Archive: Women Writing House, Home, and History in Late Colonial India. New
York: Oxford Univ. Press
Burton AM, ed. 2005. Archive Stories: Facts, Fictions, and the Writing of History. Durham, NC: Duke Univ.
Press
Campbell JR. 2010. The problem of ethics in contemporary anthropological research. Anthropol. Matters
12:117
Caplan P. 2010. Something for posterity or hostage to fortune? Archiving anthropological eld material.
Anthropol. Today 26:1317
Carrard P. 2002. Une historienne et le personnel: Le Gout
de larchive dArlette Farge. Soc. Represent.
13:22745
Cent. Soc. Media. 2005. Documentary Filmmakers Statement of Best Practices in Fair Use. Washington, DC:
Cent. Soc. Media. http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/sites/default/files/fair_use_final.pdf
Childs BG, Van Herk G, Thorburn J. 2011. Safe harbour: ethics and accessibility in sociolinguistic corpus
building. Corpus Linguist. Linguist. Theory 7:16380
Cicourel AV. 1968. The Social Organization of Juvenile Justice. New York: Wiley
Clifford J. 1985. Objects and othersan afterword. In Objects and Others: Essays on Museums and Material
Culture. History of Anthropology 3, ed. G Stocking, pp. 23646. Madison: Univ. Wis. Press
Clifford J, ed. 1997. Museums as contact zones. In Routes: Travel and Translation in the Late Twentieth Century,
pp. 188219. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
Cohen E. 2004. The orphanista manifesto: orphan lms and the politics of reproduction. Am. Anthropol.
106:71931
Cohn BS. 1987. An Anthropologist Among the Historians and Other Essays. Delhi/Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press
Colwell-Chanthaphonh C. 2011. Sketching knowledge: quandaries in the mimetic reproduction of Pueblo
ritual. Am. Ethnol. 38:45167
Comaroff J, Comaroff J. 1991. Of Revelation and Revolution. Volume 1: Christianity, Colonialism and Consciousness
in South Africa. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Comaroff J, Comaroff J. 1992. Ethnography and the Historical Imagination. Oxford: Westview
Cook T. 2007. Remembering the future: appraisal of records and the role of archives in constructing social
memory. See Blouin & Rosenberg 2007, pp. 16981

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2012.41:461-480. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org


by University of Michigan - Ann Arbor on 02/22/13. For personal use only.

AN41CH28-Zeitlyn

476

Zeitlyn

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2012.41:461-480. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org


by University of Michigan - Ann Arbor on 02/22/13. For personal use only.

AN41CH28-Zeitlyn

ARI

16 August 2012

19:27

Corti L. 2011. The European landscape of qualitative social research archives: methodological and practical
issues. Forum Qual. Soz./Forum: Qual. Soc. Res. 12, Art. 11. http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.
php/fqs/article/view/1746
Corti L, Day A, Backhouse G. 2000. Condentiality and informed consent: issues for consideration in the
preservation of and provision of access to qualitative data archives. Forum Qual. Soz./Forum: Qual. Soc.
Res. 1, Art. 7. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs000372
Corti L, Witzel A, Bishop L. 2005. On the potentials and problems of secondary analysis. An introduction to
the FQS special issue on secondary analysis of qualitative data. Forum Qual. Soz./Forum: Qual. Soc. Res. 6,
Art. 49
Coulthard M. 2002. Whose voice is it? Invented and concealed dialogue in written records of verbal evidence
produced by the police. In Language in the Legal Process, ed. J Cotterill, pp. 1934. London: Palgrave
Macmillan
Craig B. 2002. Selected themes in the literature on memory and their pertinence to archives. Am. Arch.
65:27689
Crowley P. 2007. Pierre Michon: The Afterlife of Names. Oxford/New York: Peter Lang
Cunha OMG da. 2006. Imperfect tense: an ethnography of the archive. Mana. Vol. 1. Selected ed. http://
socialsciences.scielo.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-93132006000100001&lng=
en&nrm=iso
Dados N. 2009. Anything goes, nothing sticks: radical stillness and archival impulse. M/C J. Vol. 12, No. 1.
http://dev.mediaculture.ci.qut.edu.au/ojs/index.php/mcjournal/article/view/126
Davies NZ. 1987. Fiction in the Archives: Pardon Tales and Their Tellers in Sixteenth-Century France. Cambridge,
UK: Polity
de Pina-Cabral J. 2011. The all-or-nothing syndrome and the human condition. In The Challenge of
EpistemologyAnthropological Perspectives, ed. C Toren, J de Pina-Cabral, pp. 16376. Oxford: Berghahn
Books
Derrida J. 1995. Archive fever. A Freudian impression. Diacritics 25:963
Derrida J. 2002. Archive fever in South Africa. See Hamilton et al. 2002, pp. 3880 (even pages only)
Descola P. 1998. Comment on Michael Brown, Can Culture Be Copyrighted? Current Anthropology 39:2089
Dirks N. 1993. Colonial histories and native informants: biography of an archive. See Breckenridge & van der
Veer 1993, pp. 279313
Dirks N. 2002. Annals of the archive: ethnographic notes on the sources of history. See Axel 2002, pp. 4765
Doyon D. 2008. Le regard dun ethnologue malien sur les archives du Fonds Marcel-Griaule. Ateliers Anthropol.
32: http://ateliers.revues.org/3062
Eastwood T, MacNeil H, eds. 2010. Currents of Archival Thinking. Santa Barbara, CA: Libr. Unltd.
Echevarra RG. 1990. Myth and Archive: A Theory of Latin American Narrative. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
Univ. Press
Erikson PP, with Helma Ward and Kirk Wachendorf. 2002. Voices of a Thousand People: The Makah Cultural
and Research Center. Lincoln: Univ. Neb. Press
Ernst W. 1999. Archival action: the archive as ROM and its political instrumentalization under National
Socialism. Hist. Hum. Sci. 12:1334
Fabian J. 2008. Ethnography as Commentary: Writing from the Virtual Archive. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
Farge A. 1997 [1989]. Le Gout
de larchive. Paris: Ed. Seuil
First Arch. Circ. 2007. Protocols for Native American Archival Materials. Salamanca, NY: First Arch. Circ.
http://www2.nau.edu/libnap-p/protocols.html
Foote K. 1990. To remember and forget: archives, memory, and culture. Am. Arch. 53:37892
Forsythe DE. 2001. Studying Those Who Study Us: An Anthropologist in the World of Articial Intelligence (Writing
Science). Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
Foucault M. 1967. Madness and Civilisation: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason. London: Tavistock
Foucault M. 1970. The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. London: Tavistock
Foucault M. 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. London: Allen Lane
Foucault M. 1980. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 19721977. Brighton, UK:
Harvester
www.annualreviews.org Anthropology in and of the Archives

477

ARI

16 August 2012

19:27

Fowler C. 1995. Ethical considerations. See Silverman & Parezo 1995, pp. 6372
Freshwater H. 2007. The allure of the archive: performance and censorship. Moveable Type Vol. 3 (Archives:
From Memory to Event). http://www.ucl.ac.uk/english/graduate/issue/3/pdf/freshwater.pdf
Fyfe G. 2006. Sociology and the social aspects of museums. In A Companion to Museum Studies, ed. S Macdonald,
pp. 3349. Malden, MA/Oxford: Blackwell
Garnkel H. 1984 [1967]. Good organizational reasons for bad clinic records. In Studies in Ethnomethodology, pp. 186207. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press
Geary PJ. 1994. Archival memory and the destruction of the past. In Phantoms of Remembrance: Memory and
Oblivion at the End of the First Millennium, pp. 81114. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
Geiger T, Moore N, Savage M. 2010. The archive in question. Rev. Pap. NCRM/016, ESRC Natl. Cent. Res.
Methods. http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/921/1/Moore_review_paper_march_10.pdf
Geismar H. 2012. Museum + digital = ? In Digital Anthropology, ed. HA Horst, D Miller. Oxford: Berg
Gilliland A, McKemmish S. 2004. Building an infrastructure for archival research. Arch. Sci. 4:14997
Gilliland-Swetland AJ. 2000. Archival research: a new issue for graduate education. Am. Arch. 63:25870
Gosden C, Larson F. 2007. Knowing Things: Exploring the Collections at the Pitt Rivers Museum 18841945.
Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press
Gracy KF. 2001. The Imperative to Preserve: Competing Denitions of Value in the World of Film Preservation. Los
Angeles: Univ. Calif. Press
Greetham D. 1999. Whos in, whos out: the cultural poetics of archival exclusion. Stud. Lit. Imagin. (Spec.
Issue: The Poetics of the Archive) xxxii:128
Grigg S. 1991. Archival practice and the foundations of historical method. J. Am. Hist. 78:22839
Guha R. 1983. Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India. Delhi: Oxford Univ. Press
Hamilton C, Harris V, Pickover M, Reid G, Saleh R, Taylor J, eds. 2002. Reguring the Archive. Cape Town:
David Philip
Handler R, Gable E. 1997. The New History in an Old Museum: Creating the Past at Colonial Williamsburg.
Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
Harvard Univ. Libr. Mellon Proj. Steer. Comm., Harvard Univ. Libr. Mellon Proj. Tech. Team. 2002. Report
on the Planning Year Grant for the Design of an E-Journal Archive. Andrew W. Mellon Found. http://old.
diglib.org/preserve/harvardfinal.pdf
Hutchens B. 2007. Techniques of forgetting? Hypo-amnesic history and the an-archive. SubStance 36:3755
Isaac G. 2007. Mediating Knowledges: Origins of a Zuni Tribal Museum. Tucson: Univ. Ariz. Press
Isaac G. 2011. Whose idea was this? Curr. Anthropol. 52:21133
Jackson JJ. 1990. I am a eldnote: eldnotes as a symbol of professional identity. See Sanjek 1990, pp. 333
Jimerson RC. 2003. Archives and memory. OCLC Syst. Serv. 19:8995
2008. Le Fonds Marcel-Griaule: un objet de recherche a` partager ou un patrimoine a` restituer? Ateliers
Jolly E.
Anthropol. 32: http://ateliers.revues.org/2902
Jones S, Abbott D, Ross S. 2009. Redening the performing arts archive. Arch. Sci. 9:16571
Joyce P. 1999. The politics of the liberal archive. Hist. Hum. Sci. 12:3549
Katz J. 1991. From archive to archiveology. Cinematograph 4:93103
Ketelaar E. 2001. Tacit narratives: the meanings of archives. Arch. Sci. 1:13141
Kritzman LD. 1996. Foreword. In remembrance of things French. In Pierre Nora: Realms of Memory: Rethinking
the French Past, pp. ixxiv. New York: Columbia Univ. Press
Ladurie ELR. 1978. Montaillou. Cathars and Catholics in a French Village, 12941324. London: Scolar
Leopold R. 2008. The second life of ethnographic eldnotes. Ateliers Anthropol. 32: http://ateliers.revues.
org/3132
Levy N. 1998. History as struggle: Foucaults genealogy of genealogy. Hist. Hum. Sci. 11:15970
Macdonald S. 2002. Behind the Scenes at the Science Museum. Oxford: Berg
Manoff M. 2004. Theories of the archive from across the disciplines. Portal: Libr. Acad. 4:925
Marquis K. 2007. Not dragon at the gate but research partner: the reference archivist as mediator. See Blouin
& Rosenberg 2007, pp. 3642
Mason J. 2007. Re-using qualitative data: on the merits of an investigative epistemology. Sociol. Res. Online
12: http://www.socresonline.org.uk/12/3/3.html

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2012.41:461-480. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org


by University of Michigan - Ann Arbor on 02/22/13. For personal use only.

AN41CH28-Zeitlyn

478

Zeitlyn

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2012.41:461-480. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org


by University of Michigan - Ann Arbor on 02/22/13. For personal use only.

AN41CH28-Zeitlyn

ARI

16 August 2012

19:27

Mathur S. 2000. History and anthropology in South Asia: rethinking the archive. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 29:89
106
Mayer-Schonberger
V. 2009. Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ.

Press
Meehan J. 2009. The archival nexus: rethinking the interplay of archival ideas about the nature, value, and use
of records. Arch. Sci. 9:15764
Michelet J. 1863. La sorci`ere, the witch of the Middle Ages. London: Simpkin, Marshall
Molinie A, Mouton M-D. 2008. Lethnologue aux prises avec les archivesintroduction. Ateliers Anthropol.
32: http://ateliers.revues.org/1093
Morash M. 1984. Establishment of a juvenile police record: the inuence of individual and peer group characteristics. Criminology 22:97111
Nader L. 1969. Up the anthropologistperspectives gained from studying up. In Reinventing Anthropology,
ed. D Hymes, pp. 285311. New York: Pantheon
Nardi BA, ODay V. 1996. Intelligent agentswhat we learned at the library. Libri 46:5988
Nora P. 1989. Between memory and history: les lieux de memoire. Representations 26:724
Ogle M. 2010. Archive Fever: A Love Letter to the Post Real-Time Web (blog). http://mattogle.com/archivefever
Olwig KF. 1984. Witnesses in spite of themselves: reconstructing Afro-Caribbean culture in the Danish
West Indian archives. Scand. Econ. Hist. Rev. 32:6176
Osborne T. 1999. The ordinariness of the archive. Hist. Hum. Sci. 12:5164
Ottenberg S. 1990. Thirty years of eldnotes: changing relationships to the text. See Sanjek 1990, pp. 13960
Parry O, Mauthner NS. 2004. Whose data are they anyway? Practical, legal and ethical issues in archiving
qualitative research data. Sociology 38:13952
Pels P. 1997. The anthropology of colonialism: culture, history, and the emergence of Western governmentality. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 26:16383
Pels P, Salemink O, eds. 1999. Colonial Subjects: Essays on the Practical History of Anthropology. Ann Arbor: Univ.
Mich. Press
Phelan P. 1993. The ontology of performance: representation without reproduction. In Unmarked: The Politics
of Performance, pp. 14666. London: Routledge
Pienta AM, Alter GC, Lyle JA. 2010. The enduring value of social science research: the use and reuse of primary
research data. Presented at Organ., Econ. Policy Sci. Res. Workshop, Torino, Italy. http://hdl.handle.
net/2027.42/78307
Povinelli EA. 2011. The woman on the other side of the wall: archiving the otherwise in postcolonial digital
archives. Differ. J. Fem. Cult. Stud. 22:14671
Pratt ML. 1991. Arts of the contact zone. Profession 91:3340
Richards T. 1993. The Imperial Archive: Knowledge and the Fantasy of Empire. London: Verso
Ricur P. 1988. Archives, documents, traces. In Time and Narrative, Volume 3, pp. 11626. Chicago/London:
Univ. Chicago Press
Rock F. 2001. Policy and practice in the anonymisation of linguistic data. Int. J. Corpus Ling. 6:126
Roque R, Wagner KA. 2011. Introduction: Engaging Colonial Knowledge. In Engaging Colonial Knowledge:
Reading European Archives in World History, ed. R Roque, KA Wagner, pp. 132. Basingstoke/New York:
Palgrave Macmillan
Rose S. 2009. Memories are made of this. In Memory: An Anthology, ed. AS Byatt, H Harvey Wood, pp. 5467.
London: Vintage Books
Sanjek R, ed. 1990. Fieldnotes: The Making of Anthropology. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
Savage M. 2005. Revisiting classic qualitative studies. Forum Qual. Soz./Forum: Qual. Soc. Res. 6, Art. 31.
http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/502/1081
Savage M. 2007. Changing social class identities in post-war Britain: perspectives from mass-observation.
Sociol. Res. Online 12: http://www.socresonline.org.uk/12/3/6.html
Schechner R. 1985. Between Theater and Anthropology. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. Press
Schwartz JM, Cook T. 2002. Archives, records, and power: the making of modern memory. Arch. Sci. 2:119
Shankar K. 2002. Scientists, Records, and the Practical Politics of Infrastructure. Los Angeles: Univ. Calif. Press
Shankar K. 2004. Recordkeeping in the production of scientic knowledge: an ethnographic study. Arch. Sci.
4:36782
www.annualreviews.org Anthropology in and of the Archives

479

ARI

16 August 2012

19:27

Sheringham M. 2011. Foucault, Pierre Rivi`ere and the archival imaginary. Comp. Crit. Stud. 8:23557
Shirky C. 2008. Here Comes Everybody. London: Allen & Unwin
Shore C, Wright S, eds. 1997. Anthropology of Public Policy. Critical Perspectives on Governance and Power. London:
Routledge
Silverman S, Parezo NJ, eds. 1995. Preserving the Anthropological Record. New York: Wenner-Gren Found.
Anthropol. Res. 2nd ed.
Simpson B. 2011. Ethical moments: future directions for ethical review and ethnography. J. R. Anthropol. Inst.
17:37793
Steedman C. 2002. Dust: The Archive and Cultural History. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press
Steedman C. 2007. Something she called a fever: Michelet, Derrida, and dust (or, In the archives with
Michelet and Derrida). See Blouin & Rosenberg 2007, pp. 419
Steedman C. 2008. Romance in the archive. Ontol. Arch. Conf., April 25, Univ. Manch. http://www.cresc.ac.
uk/events/archived/archiveseries/documents/Steedman.pdf
Stewart S. 1993 [1984]. On Longing: Narratives of the Miniature, the Gigantic, the Souvenir, the Collection. London:
Duke Univ. Press
Stocking GW Jr, ed. 1991. Colonial Situations. Essays on the Contextualization of Ethnographic Knowledge. Madison:
Univ. Wis. Press
Stoler AL. 1992. In cold blood: hierarchies of credibility and the politics of colonial narratives. Representations
37:15189
Stoler AL. 2009. Along the Archival Grain: Epistemic Anxieties and Colonial Common Sense. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton Univ. Press
Strateg. Content Alliance, Collect. Trust, Korn N, JISC. 2009. In from the Cold: An Assessment of the Scope of
Orphan Works and its Impact on the Delivery of Services to the Public. Cambridge, UK: JISC Collect. Trust
Taylor D. 2003. The Archive and the Repertoire: Performing Cultural Memory in the Americas. Durham,
NC/London: Duke Univ. Press
Torsen M, Anderson J. 2010. Intellectual Property and the Safeguarding of Traditional CulturesLegal Issues and
Practical Options for Museums, Libraries and Archives. Geneva: World Intellect. Prop. Organ. (WIPO)
Trace CB. 2002. What is recorded is never simply what happened: record keeping in modern organizational
culture. Arch. Sci. 2:13759
Trace CB. 2004. Documenting School Life: Formal and Informal Imprints of a Fifth-Grade Classroom. Los Angeles:
Univ. Calif. Press
Trace CB. 2006. For love of the game: an ethnographic analysis of archival reference work. Arch. Manuscr.
34:12443
Trouillot M-R. 1995. Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History. Boston, MA: Beacon
Usai PC. 1999. What is an orphan lm? Denition, rationale, and controversy. Symp. Orphans of the Storm
I: Saving Orphan Films in the Digital Age, Sept. 23, Univ. S. C., Columbia. http://www.sc.edu/
filmsymposium/archive/orphans2001/usai.html
Velody I. 1998. The archive and the human sciences: notes towards a theory of the archive. Hist. Hum. Sci.
11:116
Ward A. 1995. Copyright Ethics and Oral History. Colchester, UK: Oral Hist. Soc.
Whatley P, Brown C. 2010. Along and against the grain: the philosophy of the archive. Papers from the rst
international conference of the Investigating the Archive project. Arch. Sci. 9:12731
Yakel E. 1997. Recordkeeping in Radiology: The Relationships Between Activities and Records in Radiological Processes.
Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press
Yakel E. 2001. The social construction of accountability: radiologists and their record-keeping practices. Inf.
Soc. 17:23345
Yakel E. 2007. Archival representation. See Blouin & Rosenberg 2007, pp. 15163
Zeitlyn D. 2000. Archiving anthropology. Forum Qual. Soz. /Forum: Qual. Soc. Res. [Online J.] 1, Art. 17.
http://qualitative-research.net/fqs/fqs-eng.htm
Zeitlyn D. 2008. Life history writing and the anthropological silhouette. Soc. Anthropol. 16:15471

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2012.41:461-480. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org


by University of Michigan - Ann Arbor on 02/22/13. For personal use only.

AN41CH28-Zeitlyn

480

Zeitlyn

AN41-FrontMatter

ARI

23 August 2012

12:10

Contents

Annual Review of
Anthropology
Volume 41, 2012

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2012.41:461-480. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org


by University of Michigan - Ann Arbor on 02/22/13. For personal use only.

Prefatory Chapter
Ancient Mesopotamian Urbanism and Blurred Disciplinary Boundaries
Robert McC. Adams p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 1
Archaeology
The Archaeology of Emotion and Affect
Sarah Tarlow p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 169
The Archaeology of Money
Colin Haselgrove and Stefan Krmnicek p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 235
Phenomenological Approaches in Landscape Archaeology
Matthew H. Johnson p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 269
Paleolithic Archaeology in China
Ofer Bar-Yosef and Youping Wang p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 319
Archaeological Contributions to Climate Change Research:
The Archaeological Record as a Paleoclimatic
and Paleoenvironmental Archive
Daniel H. Sandweiss and Alice R. Kelley p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 371
Colonialism and Migration in the Ancient Mediterranean
Peter van Dommelen p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 393
Archaeometallurgy: The Study of Preindustrial Mining and Metallurgy
David Killick and Thomas Fenn p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 559
Rescue Archaeology: A European View
Jean-Paul Demoule p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 611
Biological Anthropology
Energetics, Locomotion, and Female Reproduction:
Implications for Human Evolution
Cara M. Wall-Schefer p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p71

vii

AN41-FrontMatter

ARI

23 August 2012

12:10

Ethnoprimatology and the Anthropology of the


Human-Primate Interface
Agustin Fuentes p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 101
Human Evolution and the Chimpanzee Referential Doctrine
Ken Sayers, Mary Ann Raghanti, and C. Owen Lovejoy p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 119
Chimpanzees and the Behavior of Ardipithecus ramidus
Craig B. Stanford p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 139
Evolution and Environmental Change in Early Human Prehistory
Richard Potts p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 151
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2012.41:461-480. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by University of Michigan - Ann Arbor on 02/22/13. For personal use only.

Primate Feeding and Foraging: Integrating Studies


of Behavior and Morphology
W. Scott McGraw and David J. Daegling p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 203
Madagascar: A History of Arrivals, What Happened,
and Will Happen Next
Robert E. Dewar and Alison F. Richard p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 495
Maternal Prenatal Nutrition and Health in Grandchildren
and Subsequent Generations
E. Susser, J.B. Kirkbride, B.T. Heijmans, J.K. Kresovich, L.H. Lumey,
and A.D. Stein p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 577
Linguistics and Communicative Practices
Media and Religious Diversity
Patrick Eisenlohr p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p37
Three Waves of Variation Study: The Emergence of Meaning
in the Study of Sociolinguistic Variation
Penelope Eckert p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p87
Documents and Bureaucracy
Matthew S. Hull p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 251
The Semiotics of Collective Memories
Brigittine M. French p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 337
Language and Materiality in Global Capitalism
Shalini Shankar and Jillian R. Cavanaugh p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 355
Anthropology in and of the Archives: Possible Futures
and Contingent Pasts. Archives as Anthropological Surrogates
David Zeitlyn p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 461
Music, Language, and Texts: Sound and Semiotic Ethnography
Paja Faudree p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 519

viii

Contents

AN41-FrontMatter

ARI

23 August 2012

12:10

International Anthropology and Regional Studies


Contemporary Anthropologies of Indigenous Australia
Tess Lea p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 187
The Politics of Perspectivism
Alcida Rita Ramos p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 481
Anthropologies of Arab-Majority Societies
Lara Deeb and Jessica Winegar p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 537

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2012.41:461-480. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org


by University of Michigan - Ann Arbor on 02/22/13. For personal use only.

Sociocultural Anthropology
Lives With Others: Climate Change and Human-Animal Relations
Rebecca Cassidy p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p21
The Politics of the Anthropogenic
Nathan F. Sayre p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p57
Objects of Affect: Photography Beyond the Image
Elizabeth Edwards p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 221
Sea Change: Island Communities and Climate Change
Heather Lazrus p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 285
Enculturating Cells: The Anthropology, Substance, and Science
of Stem Cells
Aditya Bharadwaj p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 303
Diabetes and Culture
Steve Ferzacca p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 411
Toward an Ecology of Materials
Tim Ingold p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 427
Sport, Modernity, and the Body
Niko Besnier and Susan Brownell p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 443
Theme I: Materiality
Objects of Affect: Photography Beyond the Image
Elizabeth Edwards p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 221
The Archaeology of Money
Colin Haselgrove and Stefan Krmnicek p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 235
Documents and Bureaucracy
Matthew S. Hull p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 251
Phenomenological Approaches in Landscape Archaeology
Matthew H. Johnson p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 269

Contents

ix

AN41-FrontMatter

ARI

23 August 2012

12:10

Language and Materiality in Global Capitalism


Shalini Shankar and Jillian R. Cavanaugh p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 355
Toward an Ecology of Materials
Tim Ingold p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 427
Anthropology in and of the Archives: Possible Futures and Contingent
Pasts. Archives as Anthropological Surrogates
David Zeitlyn p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 461
Theme II: Climate Change

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2012.41:461-480. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org


by University of Michigan - Ann Arbor on 02/22/13. For personal use only.

Lives With Others: Climate Change and Human-Animal Relations


Rebecca Cassidy p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p21
The Politics of the Anthropogenic
Nathan F. Sayre p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p57
Ethnoprimatology and the Anthropology of the
Human-Primate Interface
Agustin Fuentes p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 101
Evolution and Environmental Change in Early Human Prehistory
Richard Potts p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 151
Sea Change: Island Communities and Climate Change
Heather Lazrus p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 285
Archaeological Contributions to Climate Change Research:
The Archaeological Record as a Paleoclimatic and
Paleoenvironmental Archive
Daniel H. Sandweiss and Alice R. Kelley p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 371
Madagascar: A History of Arrivals, What Happened,
and Will Happen Next
Robert E. Dewar and Alison F. Richard p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 495
Indexes
Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 3241 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 627
Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 3241 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 631
Errata
An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Anthropology articles may be found at
http://anthro.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml

Contents